CHANDRESH LILADHAR PANARA,RAJKOT V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 403/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Chandresh Liladhar Panara, the appellant, contesting an ex parte order from the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, related to the Assessment Year 2017-18. The dispute arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning money deposited during the demonetization period. The appellant argued that he had submitted all necessary documents and explanations during the assessment proceedings, but the CIT(A) passed an order without considering these submissions, which led to the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision violated the principles of natural justice and thus remitted the case back for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473444 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: M.S.Gill vs The Chief Election Commission, A.K. Kraipak vs UOI
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: D.M. RINDANI
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOTBENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.403/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Chandresh Liladhar Panara 302, Shaligram, Near Fire Brigade, Nirmala Road, Kalawad Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360007 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Rajkot èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACXPP9999G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri D. M. Rindani, AR Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 19/12/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], dated 14.05.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 27.12.2019. 2. At the outset itself, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted entire documents and evidences before the assessing officer (AO) and explained the money deposited during the demonetization period. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee sought adjournment on 9th April 2024 to a Page | 2 ITA.403/Rjt/2024 AY.2017-18 Chandresh L. Panara vs. ITO submit the details and documents before him. However, the Ld. CIT(A) without waiting the response of the assessee, passed the ex- parte order without considering the submissions and documents, which was to be filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that since the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order and now the assessee is ready to submit the entire details and documents before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 3. The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has made full compliance and submitted each and every documents in response to various notices issued by the AO. However, on appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has granted three adjournments to the assessee, however, on the occasion of third adjournment dated 9th April, 2024, the assessee specially sought the adjournment stating that details and documents are very old and under preparation/compilation to be submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) in a well-organized manner. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not wait for the response of the assessee and pass the ex parte order without considering the documents and evidences of the assessee, which the assessee supposed to file before him, therefore, such action of ld CIT(A), is against the principle of natural justice. 5. We note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.S.Gill vs The Chief Election Commission 1978 AIR SC 851 held “The dichotomy between administrative and quasi-judicial function vis-à-vis the doctrine of natural a Page | 3 ITA.403/Rjt/2024 AY.2017-18 Chandresh L. Panara vs. ITO justice is presumably obsolescent after Kraipak (A.K. Kraipak vs UOI AIR 1970 SC 150) which makes the water-shed in the application of natural justice to administrative proceedings. The rules of natural justice are rooted in all legal systems and are not any new theology. They are manifested in the twin principles of nemo judex in parte sua (no person shall be a judge in his own case) and audi alterem partem (the right to be heard). It has been pointed out that the aim of natural justice is to secure justice.Therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19/12/2024 at Rajkot. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 19/12/2024 True Copy Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "